Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1029_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
25 Мб
Скачать
14 Mental Health
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
199
stance abuse prior to or during treatment should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, opti­mally including psychiatrists, therapists, sub­stance abuse counselors, and pain management specialists. Careful follow-up is required for patients who express self-harm or suicidal ide­ation; these patients should be referred expedi­tiously and may require hospitalization.
In conclusion, the management of mental health in HNC requires a team approach. HNC patients require follow-up for the duration of their treatment and through the survivorship period for the development of mental health con­cerns. Oncologists are critical as the “rst line” in assessing patients, providing appropriate refer­rals to subspecialists, and implementing medical therapy where appropriate. A multidisciplinary therapy team is instrumental in optimizing the care of these complex patients.
References
1. de Leeuw J, de Graeff A, Ros W, et al. Prediction of depressive symptomatology after treatment of head and neck cancer: the inuence of pre-treatment physi­cal and depressive symptoms, coping, and social sup­port. Head Neck. 2000;22:799–807.
2. Hadas S, etal. The role of psycho-oncologic screen­ings in the detection and evaluation of depression in head and neck cancer aftercare patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(4):2143–56.
3. McDaniel JS, Dominique L, Musselman L, et al. Depression in patients with cancer. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52:89–99.
4. Mermelstein HT, Lesko L. Depression in patients with cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 1992;1(4):199–215.
5. Neilson KA, Pollard AC, Boonzaier AM, Corry J, Castle DJ, Mead KR, et al. Psychological distress (depression and anxiety) in people with head and neck cancers. Med J Aust. 2010;193:S48–51.
6. Pinquart M, Duberstein PR. Depression and can­cer mortality: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40(11):1797–810.
7. Anguiano L, etal. A literature review of suicide in cancer patients. Cancer Nurs. 2012;35(4):E14–26.
8. Osazuwa-Peters N, et al. Suicide risk among can­cer survivors: head and neck versus other cancers. Cancer. 2018;124(20):4072–9.
9. Nugent SM, et al. Risk of suicidal self-directed violence among US veteran survivors of head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;147(11):981–9.
10. Osazuwa-Peters N, etal. Incidence and risk of suicide among patients with head and neck cancer in rural, urban, and metropolitan areas. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;147(12):1045–52.
11. Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson DA, Chou SP, Dufour MC, Compton W, etal. Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: results from the national epidemio­logic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(8):807–16.
12. Regier DA, Farmer ME, Rae DS, Locke BZ, Keith SJ, Judd LL, Goodwin FK. Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse: results from the epidemiologic catchment area (ECA) study. JAMA. 1990;264(19):2511–8.
13. Mykletun A, Overland S, Aarø LE, Liabø H-M, Stewart R.Smoking in relation to anxiety and depres­sion: evidence from a large population survey: the HUNT study. Eur Psychiatry. 2008;23(2):77–84.
14. NIDA. Do people with mental illness and substance use disorders use tobacco more often? 2021. https://
nida.nih.gov/publications/research- reports/tobacco­nicotine- e- cigarettes/do- people- mental- illness­substance- use- disorders- use- tobacco- more- often.
15. Duffy SA, Ronis DL, Valenstein M, Lambert MT, Fowler KE, Gregory L, et al. A tailored smok­ing, alcohol, and depression intervention for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol. 2006;15(11):2203–8.
16. Potash AE, Karnell LH, Christensen AJ, Vander Weg MW, Funk GF.Continued alcohol use in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2010;32(7):905–12.
17. Smith J, Nastasi D, Tso R, Vangaveti V, Renison B, Chilkuri M.The effects of continued smoking in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2019;135:51–7.
18. van Imhoff LC, Kranenburg GG, Macco S, Nijman NL, van Overbeeke EJ, Wegner I, et al. Prognostic value of continued smoking on survival and recurrence rates in patients with head and neck cancer: a system­atic review. Head Neck. 2016;38(S1):E2214–20.
19. Kugaya A, Akechi T, Okuyama T, Nakano T, Mikami I, Okamura H, Uchitomi Y.Prevalence, predictive fac­tors, and screening for psychologic distress in patients with newly diagnosed head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2000;88(12):2817–23.
20. Nekhlyudov L, Lacchetti C, Davis NB, Garvey TQ, Goldstein DP, Nunnink JC, Ninfea J, Salner AL, Salz T, Siu LL.Head and neck cancer survivorship care guideline: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement of the American Cancer Society guideline. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2017;35(14):1606–21. https://
doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.8478.
21. Holtmaat K, etal. Posttraumatic growth among head and neck cancer survivors with psychological distress. Psycho-Oncology. 2017;26(1):96–101.
200
I. Baranskaya et al.
22. Sharp L, etal. Posttraumatic growth in head and neck cancer survivors: is it possible and what are the cor­relates? Psychooncology. 2018;27(6):1517–23.
23. American College of Surgeons. Optimal resources for cancer care: 2020 standards. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2019.
24. Andersen BL, etal. Screening, assessment, and care of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adults with can­cer: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guide­line adaptation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15):1605–19.
25. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Survivorship Version 1. 2022. March 30. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.
org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/survivorship.pdf.
26. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.
27. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B.A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.
28. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxi­ety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.
29. Katz MR, Kopek N, Waldron J, Devins GM, Tomlinson G. Screening for depression in head and neck cancer. Psychooncology. 2004;13(4):269–80.
30. Derogatis L. Brief symptom inventory 18. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, Pearson;
2000.
31. Jacobsen PB, Donovan KA, Trask PC, Fleishman SB, Zabora J, Baker F, Holland JC.Screening for psycho­logic distress in ambulatory cancer patients. Cancer. 2005;103(7):1494–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cncr.20940.
32. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association;
2013.
33. Nixon JL, etal. Exploring the prevalence and experi­ence of mask anxiety for the person with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. J Med Radiat Sci. 2018;65(4):282–90.
34. Keast R, et al. Exploring head and neck cancer patients' experiences with radiation therapy immobili­sation masks: a qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2020;29(2):e13215.
35. Lydiatt WM, Denman D, McNeilly DP, Puumula SE, Burke WJ. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial
of citalopram for the prevention of major depres­sion during treatment for head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(5):528–35.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.134.5.528.
36. Lydiatt WM, Bessette D, Scmid KK, Sayles H, Burke WJ.Prevention of depression with escitalo­pram in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer: randomized, double-blind, placebo­controlled clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(7):678–86. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamaoto.2013.3371.
37. Lee JH, Ba D, Liu G, Leslie D, Zacharia BE, Goyal N. Association of head and neck cancer with mental health disorders in a large insurance claims database. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(4):339–44. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamaoto.2018.4512.
38. Keefe FJ, Rumble ME, Scipio CD, Giordano LA, Perri LM.Psychological aspects of persistent pain: current state of the science. J Pain. 2004;5(4):195–211.
39. Wegener ST, Castillo RC, Haythornthwaite J, MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, et al. Psychological dis­tress mediates the effect of pain on function. Pain. 2011;152(6):1349–57.
40. Dymackova R, Selingerova I, Kazda T, Slavik M, Halamkova J, Svajdova M, Slampa P, Slama O.Effect of acupuncture in pain Management of Head and Neck Cancer Radiotherapy: prospective random­ized Unicentric study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(5):1111.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051111.
41. Sayegh CS, Huey SJ Jr, Zara EJ, Jhaveri K.Follow-up treatment effects of contingency management and motivational interviewing on substance use: a meta­analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2017;31(4):403.
42. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interview­ing: preparing people to change addictive behavior. NewYork: The Guilford Press; 1991.
43. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
44. David R, Gastfriend MD, David Mee-Lee MD. The ASAM patient placement criteria. J Addict Dis. 2004;22(S1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J069v22S01_01.
45. Richardson AE, etal. A systematic review of psycho­logical interventions for patients with head and neck cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(6):2007–21.
Physical andOccupational Therapy
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
JulianaGomez, DanielleWilson, PatriciaBlack, LouisFriedman, andAnsleyM.Roche
15
Introduction
Microvascular free tissue reconstruction has become integral to the surgical care of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck can­cer. Care and attention dedicated to preserving the viability of the reconstruction in the postop­erative setting remain at the forefront of sur­geons’ and patients’ minds. Historically, mobilization was routinely delayed due to con­cerns for disrupting the microvascular anastomo­ses, and patients would often be sedated and ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) for sev­eral days after surgery [1, 2]. In the past decade,
J. Gomez Division of Head and Neck Microvascular and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ascension Macomb-Oakland Hospital, Warren, MI, USA
Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA e-mail: juliana.gomez@ascension.org
D. Wilson Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York, NY, USA
P. Black · L. Friedman Smilow Cancer Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
A. M. Roche (*) Division of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA e-mail: ansley.roche@yale.edu
evidence has emerged that early mobilization may reduce postoperative complications, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay [3].
While there is no universal protocol for peri­operative and postoperative management for complex head and neck reconstruction, evidence­based recommendations have been described to minimize postoperative morbidity [4]. These consensus-based Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations following complex head and neck surgery represent an effort to standardize perioperative and postopera­tive care; however, only 3 of the 17 recommenda­tions address postoperative mobilization and physical therapy. Some postoperative complica­tions following head and neck cancer resection and reconstruction can be avoided with early mobilization. Additionally, physical and occupa­tional therapy in the immediate postsurgical period can help to restore function early. These benets of early mobilization must be weighed against the importance of preventing injury or compromise to the reconstructive tissue.
Rehabilitation and physiotherapy after major head and neck surgery and reconstruction include not only management of the surgical sites but also prevention and management of any surgery­related loss of function. Postoperative inpatient physiotherapy addresses the following:
• Respiratory concerns including control of
secretions around surgical sites, decreasing
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Quimby et al. (eds.), Complex Head and Neck Microvascular Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38898-9_15
201
202
J. Gomez et al.
ventilator time, ensuring proper tracheostomy management or prompt extubation, and man­aging respiratory distress if present
• Cardiovascular complications, such as depen­dent edema and prevention of deep vein thrombosis
• Musculoskeletal complications and functional limitations, such as muscle stiffness or scar­ring, joint pain and dysfunction, and weakness in the head and neck region
Head and neck oncologic surgery can be par-
ticularly challenging due to the vital neurovascu­lar structures present, which are at times intimately involved with the tumor. Obtaining adequate mar­gins when critical vasculature, sensory and motor nerves, globes, and theskull base are adjacent to the tumor results in complex multifaceted defects that require a challenging reconstruction.
The loss of any vital structure of the head and
neck, whether planned in the resection or unfore­seen based on tumor growth, results in complex and often extended rehabilitation to restore lost function. Herein, we review different types of head and neck resections in the context of affected structures and rehabilitation needs, address immediate postoperative recovery from major free tissue reconstructive surgery to the head and neck, and describe multidisciplinary evidence­based techniques of physical and occupational therapy in these patients.
Oncologic Defects oftheHead andNeck
Head and neck resections involving osseous structures result in defects that without adequate reconstruction would compromise facial contour and projection, mastication, sensory and motor nerve function, and canpotentially result in dif­culty breathing.
Composite Defects
Composite defects are those consisting of more than one tissue type including osseous and soft
tissue structures. These defects can be large, require complex reconstruction, and result in temporary, and at times permanent, loss of func­tion that requires extensive and prolonged rehabilitation.
Oral cavity tumors that involve or are located near osseous structures such as the maxilla or mandible may result in sensory loss in the distri­bution of the second and third divisions of the trigeminal nerve (cranial nerve V), respectively. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction is largely dependent on the extent and type of resec­tion, e.g., a segmental resection of the mandible not involving the joint itself carries concern for articular head dislocation [5]. For oncologic resections that involve the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), consideration must be given to rec­reating the TMJ with a new articular head, com­monly fashioned from the osseous free tissue being utilized for reconstruction, in order to min­imize the severity of TMJ dysfunction postopera­tively. While it is critical to evaluate TMJ function via occlusion and maxillomandibular relation­ship intraoperatively to ensure the correct posi­tion of the native condyle or neo-condyle in the articular fossa, postoperative manipulation of the jaw or muscle pull may cause disarticulation and deviation. There can be postoperative limitations in jaw range of motion due to inammation, pain, surgical resection of the condyle and/or coronoid, and resection of the pterygoid muscles. Trismus, dened as tonic contraction of the muscles of mastication resulting in mouth opening of less than 35mm [6], can affect patients preoperatively due to tumor involvement of the TMJ or the pter­ygoid muscles, and patients have reported symp­toms of surgery-related trismus as early as the day of discharge following surgery [7]. Postoperative (chemo)radiation further increases the risk of trismus as a result of treatment-related brosis [8]. To prevent trismus, mouth-opening and jaw range-of-motion exercises are recom­mended. Optimal timing of initiation of jaw range-of-motion exercises remains unclear; how­ever, it is recommended to begin as soon as 2 weeks after surgery [9], with some evidence supporting starting as soon as 1–2days after sur­gery [10].
15 Physical andOccupational Therapy
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
203
Soft Tissue Defects
mizing speech. Postoperative rehabilitation with speech and language pathologists is imperative.
Oral Cavity Defects
Defects consisting of soft tissue structures alone may result in the sacrice of neurovascular struc­tures with resultant loss of function related to the structures that have been removed. In the case of oral tongue malignancy necessitating partial, hemi-, subtotal, or total glossectomy, speech and swallow function may be impaired, with larger resections resulting in more signicant impair­ment of these critical daily functions [11]. Oncologic resection may require removing both intrinsic and extrinsic tongue musculature. Lip and buccal cancer necessitating resection of mus­cles of mastication, muscles of oral competence, and sensory nerve bers can result in difculty swallowing some or all consistencies of food and liquids due to impaired movement of a food bolus within the oral cavity. Speech and language pathologists and dietary/nutrition teams should be involved in the immediate postoperative care of these patients depending on the type of recon­structive surgery performed.
Laryngeal Defects
In oncologic surgeryof the larynx, the degree of swallow and speech dysfunction depends on the extent of the resection. Partial, supraglottic, or supracricoid laryngectomy results in temporary dysphagia and voice changes, though as the remainder of the preserved laryngeal structures adjust and compensate, swallow and speech improve with rehabilitation after several weeks [13]. More extensive laryngeal surgery such as total laryngectomy or laryngopharyngectomy renders patients aphonic in the immediate post­operative period. Options for voice rehabilitation include tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP), elec­trolarynx, and esophageal speech. Generally, after 1 week of strict NPO for non-radiated patients and 2 weeks for previously head and neck irradiated patients, swallow therapy is initi­ated under the care of a speech and swallow ther­apist. Swallow therapy can continue for several weeks to several months depending on patients’ progress and preexisting swallow function.
Oropharyngeal Defects
Speech and swallow are commonly affected after oropharyngeal resection and reconstruction [12]. Resection of oropharyngeal structures such as the superior pharyngeal constrictors, palatopharyn­geus, stylopharyngeus muscle, base of tongue
Patients undergoing salvage laryngectomy fol­lowing (chemo)radiation may have persistent dysphagia following surgery due to radiation­induced brosis of the pharyngeal musculature and esophageal stenosis that may require esopha­geal dilation.
musculature, and motor and sensory nerve bers of the glossopharyngeal nerve can result in dys­motility and impairment of initiation of degluti­tion. Resections of the lateral pharyngeal wall and peritonsillar regions place the carotid artery, the internal jugular vein, and the vagus nerve at risk. Reconstruction of this region must provide adequate coverage to prevent exposure of these critical structures, especially if patients are to receive postoperative radiation or have been irra­diated prior to surgery. Removing part of the soft palate may result in velopharyngeal insufciency, hyper-nasal speech, and dysphagia. Reconstruction of this area should focus on sepa­rating the oropharynx and nasopharynx, restoring swallow function and nasal breathing, and opti-
Neck Dissection andNeurovascular Dysfunction
Neck dissection is often performed concurrently with resection of the primary tumor, either as a therapeutic or as an elective procedure. The residual decits following neck dissection depend on the levels of the neck that are treated and the vital structures removed at the time. In the past century, morbidity following neck dissection has decreased as the number of non-lymphatic struc­tures removed has decreased. Radical neck dis­section, rst described by Crile in 1906, involved removing all lymphatic and non-lymphatic struc­tures of the neck from the mandible to the clavi­cle with the exception of the carotid artery,
204
J. Gomez et al.
lingual nerve, hypoglossal nerve, phrenic nerve, and brachial plexus. Lymphatic and non­lymphatic structures including the sternocleido­mastoid muscle, spinal accessory nerve, internal jugular vein, omohyoid, and submandibular gland were removed. Removal of the spinal accessory nerve and resultant paralysis of the tra­pezius contributed to painful dysfunction of the shoulder and upper extremity as described by Ewing and Hayes in 1952 [14]. Patients reported cosmetic deformity, difculty abducting the upper extremity above shoulder level, and dis­comfort. Over time, surgical technique evolved as evidence demonstratedsimilar oncologic out­comes and survival when lymphatic only struc­tures were removed and non-lymphatic structures were spared.
Modied radical neck dissection was described by Suarez in 1963 [15]. This surgery spared the sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein, and where possible thespinal acces­sory nerve, while removing all lymphatic struc­tures of the neck. Surgical technique further evolved, and now selective neck dissections, which is the removal of lymph nodes immedi­ately draining the primary tumor site, are com­monly performed. Selective neck dissections have the lowest morbidity of the different types of neck dissection; however, some patients con­tinue to experience shoulder and upper extremity disfunction [16]. Spinal accessory nerve dys­function resulting from neck dissection can be due to resection of the nerve itself for oncologic purposes, though it can also occur when the nerve is preserved, likely due to neuropraxia. Symptoms of shoulder complaints and dysfunction occur in 18–77% of patients undergoing nerve-sparing modied radical neck dissections and in 29–39% of patients undergoing selective neck dissection [17, 18]. Evaluation of the spinal accessory nerve pre- and postoperatively includes assessing for ipsilateral shoulder and neck pain, abduction of the upper extremity above the horizontal plane, and head rotation to the contralateral side. These maneuvers assess the strength of both the trape­zius and the sternocleidomastoid muscles. Asking patients to elevate their shoulder is commonly done; however, the levator scapulae muscle
assists in this function, so this is not a specic test for spinal accessory nerve function. Electromyography testing can be performed to evaluate the extent of spinal accessory weakness if there is a decrease in range of motion postop­eratively. Further clinical evaluation by physical exam 2–3weeks after surgery, assessing for bilat­eral active upper extremity abduction, shoulder girdle inspection, evaluation for signs of trape­zius atrophy, altered position of the scapula, and “shoulder drop” indicate spinal accessory nerve dysfunction. The presence of two of three physi­cal signs suggests nerve dysfunction. A single symptom may be the result of postoperative pain and immobilization. Some patients experience symptoms that cannot be attributed solely to tra­pezius weakness, such as restriction of internal and external shoulder rotation, forward shoulder exion, and pain when lying on the involved side, and it is thought that this may be a result of adhe­sive capsulitis (AC) of the glenohumeral joint [19]. Minimizing postoperative immobilization will reduce the chances of chronic shoulder joint dysfunction and AC.While the optimum timing of initiation of physical therapy has not been well described, it is recommended that patient educa­tion and prevention of disuse brosis with the assistance of a physical therapist be implemented in the “immediate” postoperative period follow­ing neck dissection surgery [16, 20].
Neck dissections that require ligation of the internal jugular vein place the vagus nerve at risk for injury. Injury to the vagus nerve will clini­cally manifest as vocal fold paralysis, dysphonia, likely dysphagia, and possible aspiration. Marginal mandibular nerve injury may also occur during neck dissection, which is clinically evi­dent as weakness in depression of the ipsilateral lower lip. The hypoglossal nerve is similarly at risk during a neck dissection at levels 1B and 2A, as it passes inferior and medial to the digastric muscle. Injury would result in ipsilateral weak­ened tongue movement, with tongue deviation toward the side of injury. If the carotid sheath is manipulated during the operation, the cervical sympathetic chain may be injured and manifest as oculosympathetic palsy, or Bernard-Horner’s syndrome, a constellation of ipsilateral symp-
15 Physical andOccupational Therapy
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
205
toms that includes ptosis, miosis, and anhidrosis of portions of the face. The phrenic nerve is occa­sionally encountered during neck dissections if there are adherent lymph nodes to the oor of the neck or at the skull base. Injury to the phrenic nerve occurs in approximately 8% of radical neck dissections and results in elevation of the ipsilat­eral diaphragm. Clinically, this may manifest as an increased incidence of atelectasis in the post­operative course [21].
After undergoing neck dissections, patients may experience pain and a decreased range of motion of the neck. There is often a clinically evi­dent reduction in active cervical extension, ex­ion, and shoulder abduction [22]. To reduce postoperative neck pain and prevent overstretch­ing the trapezius, it is recommended to use a pil­low or arm rest to support the shoulder and upper arm while seated [23]. A prior history of neck radiation increases the risk for and severity of these side effects. Radiation causes muscle bro­sis, which contributes to decreased range of motion. Postoperative pain and edema, together with radiation-induced brosis, can lead to sig­nicant reduction of range of motion, if physio­therapy is not initiated to regain muscle function [24].
Neck dissections that involve the central com­partment place the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) at risk for injury. The RLN is also at risk during thyroid surgery, andsacrice of the RLN results in vocal cord paralysis and decreased sen­sation within the larynx below the level of the vocal cords [25].
Lymphedema may also occur following neck dissections and is typically more pronounced fol­lowing bilateral neck dissections, compared to unilateral neck dissection. When this does occur, manual drainage and compression with multilay­ered bandages are recommended [23], as will be discussed in detail below.
Patients who have received prior curative­intent radiation to the neck and who have under­gone dissection of the carotid sheath during surgery are at increased risk of a carotid blowout approximately 10days to 3months after surgery [26]. Ideally, range-of-motion exercises after neck surgery begin around 2 weeks postopera-
tively. This must be weighed against the risk of carotid artery blowout with patients previously irradiated to the neck. Fistula formation and delayed wound healing in the head and neck may delay initiation of physical therapy since these factors increase patients’ risk of carotid blowout [26].
Donor-Site Morbidity
Free ap selection depends on the defect being reconstructed. In general, resected osseous struc­tures are replaced by osseous free tissue, and soft tissue structures are replaced with soft tissue free tissue. There are many factors to consider when determining which type of free ap is appropri­ate, such as previous injuries or surgeries that may have disrupted the blood supply to a poten­tial free ap harvest site, comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease and hematologic dis­orders, and patients’ cardiopulmonary status. Harvest of different types of free aps carries risks related to the donor site, and postoperative physical therapy should be targeted to address any functional sequelae that may arise after surgery.
Upper Extremity
Upper extremity free aps are extremely effec­tive in oral cavity reconstruction. Both the radial forearm free ap and the lateral arm free ap are slim and pliable, with the RFFF possessing a lon­ger pedicle that can be easily anastomosed to ves­sels in the neck.
Lateral Arm Free Flap
Song etal. [27] introduced the lateral arm free ap, which is a soft tissue free ap without an osseous component. Scar visibility is the most common morbidity and patient complaint about the lateral arm donor site. Impaired elbow mobility is associated with the highest patient dissatisfaction. It is recommended that intensive postoperative mobilization is initi­ated. Paresthesia of the arm has been reported
206
J. Gomez et al.
but does not seem to affect patient satisfaction [28].
Radial Forearm Free Flap
Radial forearm free ap can be either a fasciocu­taneous free ap, often used for intraoral recon­struction, or less commonly an osteocutaneous ap, commonly used for maxillary defects and short-segment mandibular reconstructions. Prior to the introduction of prophylactic radial bone plating, fracture of the forearm was the most common morbidity associated with this ap [29].
Arganbright’s study [30] of radial forearm free aps using split-thickness skin graft (STSG) foundthat tendon exposure is the most common donor-site morbidity, followed by sensory neu­ropathy, infection. Radial fracture was the least common. To improve the success of a STSG,it is recommended to keep the forearm in a splint for 5–7 days postoperatively [31] protected with soft dressing and continue full arm mobilization after the splint is removed, until the wound is healed [32].
Lower Extremity
Use of the lower extremity in head and neck microvascular reconstruction has expanded due to the versatility of the multiple free aps avail­able. Physiotherapeutic considerations are nota­ble due to frequent use of the lower extremity in daily living and the necessity to return to near­baseline function. Most commonly used are the bula free ap (FFF), the anterolateral thigh free ap (ALT), and the medial sural artery free ap (MSAP).
Fibula Free Flap
The FFF is a workhorse of head and neck recon­struction. It can be harvested as an osteocutane­ous, osteomyocutaneous, or osseous ap and can be incorporated into a variety of mandibular and maxillary defects with accompanying soft tissue defects. However, use of the FFF is not without donor-site morbidity. Early donor-site morbidity includes delayed wound healing, wound infec-
tion, partial or total skin graft loss if used, and wound dehiscence. These sequelae occur in 1–17.4% of patients according to a systematic review of donor-site morbidity following bula free ap surgery [33]. Late donor-site morbidity includes chronic pain typically around the ankle joint, ankle instability, gait abnormality, decreased a range of motion, claw toe deformity, and sensory decits in 3.9–11.5% of patients [33]. The bula bears between 6.4% and 10% of body weight with the ankle joint in neutral posi­tion and varies with exion, eversion, and load­ing [34], though it has been theorized “that the bula is merely a strut that maintains the ankle conguration and does not actively participate in weight-bearing” [35].
Lower extremity immobilization follows b­ula free ap harvest with either a controlled ankle movement (CAM) boot, posterior plaster splint, or leg cast. The choice of methodology of immo­bilization is primarily institution and surgeon dependent. Regardless of the means of immobili­zation, it is important to maintain the ankle in gentle dorsiexion and the toes visible when placing the dressing to the donor limb. The toes remain visible to monitor the donor limb for vas­cular compromise—a rare yet feared complica­tion of FFF harvest.
Generally, the limb remains elevated for 24h after surgery. Initiation of ambulation varies across institutions, with some surgeons advocat­ing for early mobilization on postoperative day 1 or 2 [36] according to areview of 157 patients in which the authors found no association between incidence of donor-site complications and timing of ambulation. Other authors have described waiting until postoperative day 5 if a skin graft is present [37]. Weight-bearing status is not well described in the postoperative period. In a review of 100 patients undergoing FFF, Babovic et al. described ambulating on postoperative day 2, without the mention of weight-bearing status [37]. Others have described non-weight-bearing walking with crutches and physical therapy on postoperative day 3. Weight-bearing is increased gradually at the end of 6weeks; however, crutches were encouraged for 6months. It is important to
15 Physical andOccupational Therapy
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
207
note however that in the patients described, the bula was used to reconstruct the femoral head; therefore, the restrictive weight-bearing status may have had more to do with the recipient site than the donor site [37]. In head and neck reconstruction, it is generally accepted that toe­touch weight-bearing can be initiated on postop­erative day 3, after an initial period of non-weight- bearing, progressing to full weight­bearing around postoperative day 7, under the direction and care of a physiotherapist [38]. The leg is to remain elevated when not ambulating, including when sitting in a chair. Removal of the splint or cast varies as well by institution— remaining in place for 3to 7days, depending on the presence of a split-thickness skin graft. Use of the CAM boot with ambulation can be offered to patients for comfort, and duration of use ranges from 2 to 6 weeks depending on institutional preference.
Anterolateral Thigh Flap
Since the thigh-based perforator ap was rst described by Song et al. in 1984 [39], it has become a reliable and widely used ap in soft tis­sue reconstruction of the head and neck. Depending on the defect and reconstruction goals, the anterolateral thigh ap (ALT) can be harvested as a fasciocutaneous ap or as a mus­culocutaneous ap harvested with a portion of the vastus lateralis. Morbidity following ALT harvest, while low, can impact hospital length of stay, postoperative function, and patients’ quality of life (QOL). A systemic review and pooled analysis of donor-site morbidity after thigh aps describe a 0.9% hematoma rate requiring evacua­tion, 2% seroma rate, and 3.8% rate of wound dehiscence. Leg contour deformity was described and was increased when vastus lateralis was also harvested [40]. Postoperative pain was reported in 2.6% of pooled cases. Subjective and objective musculoskeletal dysfunction was reported. While a reduction of isokinetic contraction force in 20–26% of patients was reported in half of the studies reporting on musculoskeletal dysfunc­tion, no difference was reported in the other half
of the objective studies, and a pooled analysis found no signicant decrease in contractile force. In a mixed-methods study analyzing prospective and retrospective data on sensory and motor de­cits following ALT harvest, researchers found that 82% of patient reported numbness, and the size of the free ap was associated with 2-point discrimination scores. At 1 year after surgery, there was no difference between isometric quad­riceps contraction in the ipsilateral (surgical) thigh compared to the contralateral thigh. Intramuscular dissection did not appear to have an impact on motor function nor did the ap size [41].
Wound dehiscence may prolong hospital stay for patients whose ALT donor sites are primarily closed. Harvest of large aps increases the likeli­hood of dehiscence. A recent study investigating the impact of incisional negative-pressure ther­apy (INPT) found that in patients where an inci­sional negative-pressure system was applied, there was a lower incidence of dehiscence and skin necrosis compared to a control group. There were also fewer overall complications in the INPT group (7.14%) compared to the control group (37%), and in a multivariant analysis, INPT was associated with reduced donor-site complications, notably in patients with thigh defects >8cm [42].
Posterior Tibial Flap
The free posterior tibial ap is a soft tissue ap that has been increasingly used to reconstruct soft tissue head and neck defects [43]. Overall morbidity from harvesting the posterior tibial artery is low, with reports of 87.5% of patients having no complaints after surgery. In a study of 64 consecutive patients undergoing a posterior tibial ap for oral cavity defects, no patients reported difculty walking on ground level; how­ever, weakness and/or fatigue was reported in
10.9% of patients going up and down stairs. No participants reported cold intolerance. Ankle movement was not affected postoperatively, before and after exercise, nor was the ankle­brachial index [43].
208
J. Gomez et al.
Torso
There are several frequently used free aps har­vested from the torso. The scapula, latissimus dorsi, rectus abdominis, and deep circumex iliac artery ap are among the most commonly used torso ap.
Scapula Free Flap
The scapula ap is a versatile ap that can be har­vested as an osseous, osseocutaneous, or mega­ap if the latissimus dorsi muscle is also harvested; however, it is typically not the rst choice for osteocutaneous reconstruction due to the need to reposition the patient for harvest and difculty of simultaneous ap harvest and abla­tion surgery [44]. Postoperatively, it is recom­mended that the arm of the donor site be placed in a sling for 3–6 weeks. Some surgeons recom­mend immobilization period of 2weeks prior to initiating protected passive range of motion at the start of the 6th week, begin active range of motion, and at the 12th week begin strengthening the shoulder [45]. Others begin physical therapy on postoperative day 7 with gentle passive move­ments that continues after discharge for at least 3months [46]. Donor-site morbidity after scap­ula harvest includes objective (Constant-Murley score) and subjective (the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) test) decreased range of motion of the upper extremity in many patients, specically decreased abduction, that improves with time and does not appear to inter­fere with the activities of daily living. Seroma and wound dehiscence tend to occur when larger skin paddles are harvested [46].
Latissimus Dorsi Free Flap
The latissimus dorsi can be used as a myocutane­ous or muscle-only ap. Morbidity following latissimus dorsi free apharvestincludes numb­ness and difculties with strenuous activities such as reaching over the head, vacuuming, and cleaning windows. Difculty with leisure-time activities such as tennis and golf has also been reported [47], andthere is some evidence to sup­port that shoulder joint function may also be affected [48]. While these impairments may be
acceptable to some patients, they are not negligi­ble and postoperative physical therapy can help to minimize the level of impairment.
Rectus Abdominus Free Flap
The rectus abdominis ap can also be harvested as a myocutaneous ap or muscle-only free ap. Because a portion of muscle is harvested, the most worrisome complication is and abdominal hernia [49]. To reduce stress on the abdominal wall postoperatively, the head of the bed should be elevated to a 45-degree angle and the patient may lie in a fetal position on the uninvolved side, should be advised to avoid Valsalva maneuvers, and should cough with a pillow up against the chest. The patient should be taught to use log­rolling techniques to avoid disrupting abdominal sutures while moving around in bed. Abdominal strengthening exercises usually begin several weeks postoperatively, with lifting and sit-ups beginning at 6weeks after surgery [50].
Deep Circumex Iliac Artery Free Flap
The deep circumex iliac artery free apcan be harvested either as an osteocutaneous or an osteo­musculocutaneous free ap. Approximately one­quarter of patients report sensory decits, which is generally the most common sequela reported. Other donor-site morbidity includes gait abnor­malities, chronic pain, and hernia formation. Aggressive postoperative physical therapy is thought to reduce potential gait disturbance [51].
Postoperative Physical and Occupation
Physical Therapy
Timing of initiation of physical therapy tends to be surgeon and institution dependent. Head and neck surgeons historically have been conser­vative in postoperative mobilization—citing con­cern for integrity of the microvascular anastomoses. Injury to the vascular anastomosis within the neck after reconstruction is of great concern to head and neck surgeons in the imme­diate postoperative period. Historically, patients were sedated and immobilized for 2–3days post­operatively, although there has been a notable shift in recent literature advocating for early mobilization, as soon as within the rst 24hours following surgery [4]. Early initiation of mobili-